In summarizing their comparisons of the Marin County statistics and those from the San Francisco area generally, the authors of this report note:

"Consistently the foregoing figures point up a picture of downward trends in ANC caseload (both in relation to population and absolutely) and in total costs in the 4-year period (1953 through 1956) that the family care unit has operated in Marin. Concurrently, in the San Francisco area group of counties which have many common factors in their economic and social paaterns, the trends are upward."

In concluding their report, they note that their program was in jeopardy in July 1955 when a firm of administrative analysts made a survey of the welfare department for the county grand jury. In the eventual public hearing, it is noteworthy that a representative of the California Taxpayers' Association brought out that "per capita expenditures for welfare in Marin County were lower than in any of the other 11 counties of the State closest to Marin in population." He also pointed out that the administrative costs of Marin's total welfare programs were the second lowest in this group of counties. He stated, and several other speakers agreed, that "If you spend $10 more in administrative cost to save $100 in the aid program, you've saved money." It is encouraging to note that the director's budget was granted and that caseloads were kept down to their 40-to50 limit. "The support given by the board and community amounted to a vote of confidence in the preventive and rehabilitative approach taken by the Marin County Welfare Department." (10)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) "Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare, Texas," 1960, p. 6. (2) "ADC Demonstration Project," Washington, D.C., Department of Public Welfare, 1954. (Mimeographed.)

(3) "Reducing Dependency. A Report of a Demonstration and Research Project," Wilbur J. Cohen and Sydney E. Bernard, Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Michigan, December 1960. (Mimeographed.)

(4) "Casework Services in ADC," Maude Von P. Kemp, James M. Wallis, and Joyce Hetzel, Chicago. APWA, Child Welfare series No. 2, January 1957, pp. 18 and 19.

(5) "Twenty-first Annual Report of the State Welfare Board, Florida." sonville. Florida State Welfare Board, 1958, p. 13.

Jack

Penn

(6) "Public Welfare Report, June 1, 1958-May 31, 1960." Harrisburg. sylvania Department of Public Welfare, September 1960, pp. 75 and 76. (7) "ADC: Problem and Promise," Chicago, Ill., APWA, undated. Justine Fixel and Kermit T. Wiltse, "A Study of the Administration of the ADC Program," p. 35.

(8) "A study of ADC Cases Receiving Intensive Casework in 1958 and 1959," Lake County, Ind. Department of Public Welfare, Intensive Casework Division (passim).

A report on the rehabilitation potential of
Albany. New York State Department

(9) "To Prevent and To Restore." public social services in New York State. of Social Welfare, 1960 (passim).

(10) "A Study of Marin County, Calif.-Building Services Into a Public Assistance Program Can Pay Off." California Department of Social Welfare, 1958 (passim).

Supporting studies

"A Study of Protective Services and the Problem of Neglect of Children in New Jersey," Claire R. Hancock. Trenton. New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies, State Board of Child Welfare, 1958.

"The Incentive Budgeting Demonstration Project." Denver Department of Public Welfare, July 1959-June 1961 (interim report, June 1960).

"Facts, Fallacies, and Future." A study of the ADC program of Cook County, Ill. (New York City: Greenleigh Associates, 1960.)

"Parental Behavior in ANC Families." State of California, Department of Social Welfare, July 16, 1960.

"Aid to Dependent Children in Maine." A study of family management, Maine Department of Health and Welfare, June 1960.

Mr. KING. Thank you again.

Miss WICKENDEN. Thank you.

Mr. KING. Mr. Keogh, who is unavoidably absent today, has asked the chairman to read this statement to the committee on his behalf:

Mrs. Randolph Guggenheimer, the next witness, is a member of a distinguished New York family which for many, many years has devoted its time and talents to many humanitarian and charitable causes. Mrs. Guggenheimer has been in the forefront expousing the cause of her more unfortunate fellow citizens. I know that she will bring to the committee a humane and experienced point of view, and I commend her testimony to my colleagues. In addition to all her other activities, Mrs. Guggenheimer is presently serving on the very important New York City Planning Commission by appointment of His Honor, Mayor Wagner.

Mrs. Guggenheimer. Will you identify yourself for the record, please?

STATEMENT OF MRS. ELINOR C. GUGGENHEIMER, NEW YORK, N.Y., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE DAY CARE OF CHILDREN, INC.

Mrs. GUGGENHEIMER. My name is Elinor C. Guggenheimer and I am president of the National Committee for the Day Care of Children, Inc.

Mr. KING. You may proceed, Mrs. Guggenheimer.

Mrs. GUGGENHEIMER. Our organization represents individuals and groups in many parts of the country, all of whom have been troubled by the devastating problem of child neglect and who feel that one of the major solutions to the problem could be found in the development of good programs of day care for children.

We are therefore in favor of the principles set forth in those sections of H.R. 10032 (bill to extend and improve the public assistance and child welfare services programs of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes) which relate to day care. We endorse the principle of allotments for day care and the development of family and group day care programs in all our States.

We are deeply convinced that rehabilitative and preventive programs are urgently needed. This country has many examples of families who have been on public assistance for two and even three generations. The patterns of dependency will never be broken unless children are exposed to at least one wage earner in the family. There were, as of July 1961, 2,621,252 children in families receiving aid to dependent children. Certainly, we are in favor of mothers staying at home with young children. We are delighted that at least the problems of starvation are staved off by the program of public assistance to families for the care of dependent children.

However, we are equally aware that public assistance levels are low and that the status accorded such families is low. The depressing and demoralizing effect of continuing public assistance is in many cases undesirable. There are mothers who should be allowed to choose work, if the community could guarantee that their children would not be neglected.

Preventive programs, particularly good day care, can keep families from starting down the too often dead-end paths of public assistance and can help them to find their own way.

Even more serious is the large number of mothers who enter the labor force, although there are no adequate provisions for the care of

their children. I would like to interpolate here that day care is not a program of subsidy to mothers. I think somebody on the committee made such a statement. It is a program to provide care for children and to strengthen family life, and in some cases the home may not have a mother.

It may be a father who is helped to keep his family together because he is not able to go to work, but there is a day care service.

The Children's Bureau, in a report based on data collected in 1958, stated that there were more than 400,000 children under 12, in our country, whose mothers work full time and for whom no arrangements whatsoever are made during the day.

Psychiatrists tell us that neglect is more deadly in its effect than the most virulent of the childhood diseases. Millions of dollars have been spent in our country on vaccines for polio, scarlet fever, diphtheria, smallpox. We ask for $5 million this year to give the vaccine that will prevent destruction that occurs from neglect in early childhood.

It is very hard when you are talking about only measuring economic need to talk about prevention, because when you give polio shots you are not always sure you are giving them only to the children who would have gotten polio. You give them to all children to prevent it.

We want to give day care to those children who need it in order to prevent some of the social ills that are caused by the lack of care during the day. We believe day care can prevent such exorbitantly expensive social ills as juvenile delinquency and emotional breakdown. Day care reaches young children and young families when they can still be helped-when patterns have not yet become hardened. The failure of "cure" programs has been amply demonstrated. Juvenile delinquency and emotional illness rates are alarmingly high. In every year in the past, with the exception of 1959, the increase in delinquency cases exceeded increase in the child population.

The current figures of the National Association for Mental Health indicate that 1 out of 10 in our population has some form of mental illness needing psychiatric attention. It is obvious that the "cure" programs have been inadequate in preventing dependency, delinquency, and emotional breakdown Should it not therefore be equally obvious that we must increase our preventive programs?

There has been some increase in the number of commercial day-care centers in the country. However, since these must operate for profit, the fees they must charge places them out of the reach of many families. In October 1960, a survey made by the Child Welfare Studies Board of the Division of Research of the Children's Bureau indicates that all but 3 of the 44 States who replied to the question asking about the need for additional day-care facilities reported that such a need existed.

During the last 5 years, there has been an increase in both the number of preschool and school age children whose mothers work full time. The rate of increase is larger in the school age group, which indicates that too many young children are joining the so-called latch key group. These are the children who wander our city streets, or return home to an empty house. Supervision is needed for this highly vulnerable group during their out-of-school hours. Certainly

supervision is needed for the preschool children, too many of whom were recorded in a study made in 1958 as being left without any care during the day.

Kindergarten or short-day nursery schools are not the answer. They provide a valuable service but the children who have no one at home to care for them all day long must have not only a full-day program but a special kind of program that compensates for the loss of family life.

America has lagged dangerously behind other countries in its concern for the neglected child. According to a report prepared by the United Nations, in France, for example, the Government may allocate up to 50 percent of operating costs for crèches and day nurseries.

In Norway, the State provides a fixed per capita amount for children receiving day care. In every one of the Communist countries the importance of day care to the preservation of manpower is recognized, and heavily subsidized.

In Denmark, the combination of public subsidies and fees from parents cover running expenses of most day-care centers today.

In the United Kingdom, grants are given by both the Treasury and local governments amounting to approximately two-thirds of the running costs of the day nurseries.

In Finland, both the national and local governments provide subsidies for crèches, kindergartens, and leisure-time activities.

In Yugoslavia, where day-care services are institutions of the state. financing is shared by the National Government and the local community, with parents paying approximately one-third of the cost of care for each child. Mothers who are the sole wage earners in a family, however, are required to pay only 3 percent of such cost.

In the United States, on the other hand, there are no Federal funds for day care except for certain limited types of service. Only one State, California, supports a widespread day-care program with public funds congratulations-and only two major cities. New York and Philadelphia, allocate substantial public funds for this purpose.

Unless Federal aid is available to stimulate day-care programs, we know from experience that such programs will not come into existence and that child day-care service with damaging and dangerous standards will persist. Other countries throughout the world have made this discovery.

I am confident that no one on this committee, absent or present, would withhold help from a child locked up in a room, or one wandering the streets with a latchkey around his neck, or suffering from the indifferent and often cruel care of some woman who is gouging the working or incapacitated mother.

Very little money is being sought in relation to the vast amount spent by this country for all other kinds of services, but this small amount of $5 million could serve to stimulate our States at least to take a look at what is happening to children in our city slums, in our migrant farm camps, on military installations, and in defense-impacted areas and in rural and suburban communities-and to provide the answer for the children who are now being neglected.

On behalf of the membership of the National Committee for the Day Care of Children, Inc., we urge you to give favorable consideration to the appropriation of $5 million for the coming fiscal year and

$10 million for the following year, so that we may provide decent care during the day for the children in this country who desperately need it.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mrs. Guggenheimer. Does that conclude your statement?

Mrs. GUGGENHEIMER. May I just hand in for the record a statement which is Dr. Eliot's and my joint statement on H.R. 9299. It has been referred to.

Mr. KING. Without objection you may.

Mrs. GUGGENHEIMER. Thank you very much. (The statement referred to above follows:)

STATEMENT OF ELINOR C. GUGGENHEIMER, NEW YORK, N.Y.

On behalf of Dr. Martha Eliot and myself, I would like to submit this brief statement in support of the chairman's bill-H.R. 9299 which provides for research grants to nonprofit institutions of higher learning or other nonprofit research agencies or agencies engaged in maternal and child health or crippled children's programs.

The research undertaken with these grants would be that related to the maternal and child health and crippled children's services which are already aided with funds authorized under title V of the Social Security Act. I refer to this bill because research of the kind proposed will help in providing the standards for safe care of children who are cared for in the day-care centers about which I have been speaking.

The grants for these health services also need to be increased so that health services may be made more widely available to children in our large cities. It is especially in the large industrial cities that day-care centers are urgently required. Dr. Eliot, a former chief of the Children's Bureau, has made proposals to the chairman of this committee that H.R. 9299 be amended to include increases to the States in the grants for maternal and child health services and crippled children's services. We both believe that the increases suggested should be made. The work that is done for children by the States with the help of these grants is well known to you. To increase the grants would mean that many more children who are in need would benefit greatly.

Mr. KING. The committee will now adjourn until Tuesday morning next at 10 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., Friday, February 9, 1962, the committee was adjourned, to be reconvened at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 13, 1962.)